3DS max QuickSilver Upgrade

[Anonymous]

Hello Autodesk team.

So the idea is simple:

Remember that GPU accelerated renderer you guys implemented on 3DS MAX a few years ago, that's extremely powerfull and the fastest GPU renderer on any 3D software out there (I've tested it, with different scenarios, in 4K), that you didn't care about since then?

Well.... Its called QuikSilver... may I remind you... and its fast and powerfull, as fast and powerfull can be!... And really has a potential to beat any production ready GPU accelerated renderer that is at the moment.

So, my suggestion, to actually make it a powerfull 3DS MAX integrated GPU rendering tool on the next installment, or it will be to late I must add, is to successfully integrate in some lines of code, a few majorly IMPORTANT features, to start with:

_Volume scattering (volume fog) lighing interactive

_Light volumetrics (volume light)

_Camera effects (lens flare/bloom)

_Shader/Material displacement option (tesselation)

So, if QuickSilver is a considerable option for your software package (or I dont know why you coded in the first place) then this are the main features to get URGENTLY fully working on this powerfull renderer.

My wishes to you, keeping the best work at Autodesk,

and my best regards.

Luis Oliveira

https://luisoliveira94064.artstation.com/

[kulaginb]

Agree. I use QS from it creation - fast (4-6 seconds for frame HD resolution) and quality is enough for my presentations. But I want full (as possible) support for new (and old) features - physical material, new sun/sky system, matte-shadow, etc. 

[electrotoast_old]

Unfortunately, we currently don't have plans to do upgrades to QS.

[kulaginb]

Answer in Autodesk style... Good job! 

[electrotoast_old]

I would rather tell you up front that we're not going to work on something than say maybe and still not work on it. We have to gauge the expertise available from design to dev to qa vs. potential size of a project vs. what else we have that would be a priority. I would love for us to say we'll do everything on the forum, but at the end of the day, we simply can't.

[kulaginb]

Sorry for my post. I understand that QS not the first task of the list. First need to redesign the viewport, I remember rumours about Stingray based viewport. Three or five years ago? 

[electrotoast_old]

No worries! My intention also wasn't to dismiss the Idea. We just want to be transparent around what we're doing. That's not to say we'll never do anything about QS, but not right now.

With regards to a Stingray based viewport, the timing isn't right for that either. While we do see some other competitors doing things around PBR or realtime effects in the viewport, you'll notice it's smaller scenes or single assets. Our viewport needs to handle way more data at any given point as users make a decision. We had a customer a couple months back that sent us a screen shot of his viewport with 1.2 billion polys running in one scene. The purpose was because he was doing something with a large plant that he needed that detail while he worked. While we may get to more game-like viewports, for many people that's not what they need right now.

That being said, the largest Idea Under Review is around Viewport tear-off. We are definitely looking into viewport updates pretty soon.

[Anonymous]

Hello again Autodesk team. So, the VIEWPORT...??? Really....??? All the 3d packages, ALL OF THEM, have slight viewport issues, or let's say... incompletions, and any 3d artist knows that the viewport is as relieable as it can be to a certain extent... on ANY software.. An artist must relly a lot on render testing, and creating file assets who render the way they're suposed to when tested. Therefore constant rendering test. So you're basically saying, its not important at all to have a full production ready GPU renderer working on full integration, with, probably the most used 3D package in the world, 3DS max, when every studio seams to use more and more GPU rendering for multiple purposes, witch is inevitable? Ok. If thats not possible for the team, so be it. And dont mix up the subject with Stingray. Thats a realtime tool, witch is used to different purposes. You can't render in video a movie or a comercial with the same quality in a realtime engine vs. a renderer. A dedicated renderer will allways be better in quality and realism, because simply as more time to compute. Its basic, will never change. Otherwise time wouldnt be a problem in computing, witch it is. So Qsilver is a lost cause, because it will be dwarfed soon, by other renderers out there, but it could be different, thus the reason of my suggestion. My best wishes to Autodesk team. Luis Oliveira.